FoV instead of mm

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

This has a meaning: one speed step is double or half. It is easy for a
photographer to memorize the steps from frequent use.

Well, 4ms or 2ms is also easy to understand.

except that photographers have been using 1/250, 1/500, etc., for
*years* and it's not going to change any time soon, if ever.

I could change, I see no issue.

you might, but billions of others would have to agree to switch and
that's something that is not going to happen any time soon.

I still see no issue. Modern cameras are computers, and most people are
used to configure software. trivial to add such a config.

they could certainly add it, but the question is whether people
actually will switch.

less trivial is changing the markings on the shutter speed dial, which
some digital cameras have:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-c...2/Nikon-Df-Top.
jpg
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nikon-Df.jpg

photographers would find a shutter dial marked in milliseconds instead
of the traditional fractions of a second to be *extremely* confusing.

Inches/centimetres, similar thing.

not a similar thing, since that's just changing units, not a reciprocal.

On 31/05/2019 05.28, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

This has a meaning: one speed step is double or half. It is easy for a
photographer to memorize the steps from frequent use.

Well, 4ms or 2ms is also easy to understand.

except that photographers have been using 1/250, 1/500, etc., for
*years* and it's not going to change any time soon, if ever.

I could change, I see no issue.

you might, but billions of others would have to agree to switch and
that's something that is not going to happen any time soon.

I still see no issue. Modern cameras are computers, and most people are
used to configure software. trivial to add such a config.

they could certainly add it, but the question is whether people
actually will switch.

We won't know till they try :-)


less trivial is changing the markings on the shutter speed dial, which
some digital cameras have:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-c...2/Nikon-Df-Top.
jpg
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nikon-Df.jpg

Then those will not do it.

photographers would find a shutter dial marked in milliseconds instead
of the traditional fractions of a second to be *extremely* confusing.

Inches/centimetres, similar thing.

not a similar thing, since that's just changing units, not a reciprocal.

In the end, it is just units. The relation between a stop and the next
is just half/double, unless you add intermediates.

1" 0.5, 0.25, 0.125... etc. Or find another scale.
0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.0025 ... in the end we get decimals. Maybe too
many decimals, and that would be a reason against it. maybe instead of
0.00125 use 0.00120



--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 30/05/2019 20:22, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-30 08:58, Whisky-dave wrote:

True and in this digital age why do we still use 1/x for exposure
times why say 1/250th second when you can say 4 milliseconds or 4ms ?

Reciprocity.

LOL! Nice one, Alan!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 30/05/2019 10:45, Alfred Molon wrote:
Instead of reporting meaningless focal lengths in mm,
for this phone of Xiaomi (the Redmi K20), the actual
field of view is declared for the three camera modules:

- an ultrawide angle module with a FoV of 124.8 degrees
and 13 MP
- the main camera with a FoV of 79.4 degrees
- a tele module with a FoV of 44.6 degrees and 8MP

The article (German only) is at
https://www.golem.de/news/redmi-k20-pro-xiaomi-
praesentiert-top-smartphone-ab-320-euro-1905-141564.html

This could be done also for standard camera lenses. For
sure at least for ultrawide angle lenses the FoV is a
more relevant number than the focal length in mm.

Would you quote horizontal, vertical or diagonal FoV?

I'm thinking of phones and other cameras where the aspect ratio can be
changed between 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. You might need to quote three
different FoV values - one for each aspect ratio.

But I agree that FoV would be more meaningful than a hundred-year-old
arbitrary value. Thank goodness it's European, though, and not 1 3/8
inches!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


This has a meaning: one speed step is double or half. It is easy for a
photographer to memorize the steps from frequent use.

Well, 4ms or 2ms is also easy to understand.

except that photographers have been using 1/250, 1/500, etc., for
*years* and it's not going to change any time soon, if ever.

I could change, I see no issue.

you might, but billions of others would have to agree to switch and
that's something that is not going to happen any time soon.

I still see no issue. Modern cameras are computers, and most people are
used to configure software. trivial to add such a config.

they could certainly add it, but the question is whether people
actually will switch.

We won't know till they try :-)

it's a *very* safe bet that it will fail.

it offers *no* benefit over what exists now. only disadvantages.

less trivial is changing the markings on the shutter speed dial, which
some digital cameras have:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-c...2/Nikon-Df-Top.
jpg
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Nikon-Df.jpg

Then those will not do it.

which means people will have to deal with two systems.

not going to happen.

photographers would find a shutter dial marked in milliseconds instead
of the traditional fractions of a second to be *extremely* confusing.

Inches/centimetres, similar thing.

not a similar thing, since that's just changing units, not a reciprocal.

In the end, it is just units. The relation between a stop and the next
is just half/double, unless you add intermediates.

units that get bigger or smaller in opposite directions, which is
guaranteed to cause confusion.

1" 0.5, 0.25, 0.125... etc. Or find another scale.
0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.0025 ... in the end we get decimals. Maybe too
many decimals, and that would be a reason against it. maybe instead of
0.00125 use 0.00120

the reason against it is that there is no point in changing anything.

what exists works perfectly fine.

On 5/31/2019 8:47 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 31 May 2019 11:45:36 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:



Would you quote horizontal, vertical or diagonal FoV?

a good point and with fish-eye lenses do fish actually have tthe sort of FoV
that we accosiate with a fish eye lens, it seems odd that they'd have that sort of vision.

OK, I had to look it up. Seems the term was coined based on a phenomenon
called Snell's window :
[snippet from wiki]
"Under ideal conditions, an observer looking up at the water surface
from underneath sees a perfectly circular image of the entire
above-water hemisphere—from horizon to horizon."

--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On 2019-05-31 06:17, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:23:05 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-30 08:58, Whisky-dave wrote:

True and in this digital age why do we still use 1/x for exposure times why say 1/250th second when you can say 4 milliseconds or 4ms ?

Reciprocity.

what has that got to do with it.

Do you have a single notion of how exposure works considering depth of
field?


--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

it offers *no* benefit over what exists now. only disadvantages.

The advantages are more accurate shutter settings.

shutter settings are already accurate, and if the camera is in aperture
priority or program mode, the shutter speed can be anything, such as
1/201 or 1/697th.

not that it matters, since anything less than 1/2 stop off isn't going
to make a difference.





what exists works perfectly fine.

Film also worked perfectly fine.

it did, up until it was replaced by something *much* better.

changing shutter speeds to milliseconds is not much better. it's not
better at all. it's worse for all sorts of reasons.

On May 31, 2019, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ):

On Friday, 31 May 2019 16:14:43 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-31 06:17, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:23:05 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-30 08:58, Whisky-dave wrote:

True and in this digital age why do we still use 1/x for exposure times
why say 1/250th second when you can say 4 milliseconds or 4ms ?

Reciprocity.

what has that got to do with it.

Do you have a single notion of how exposure works considering depth of
field?

Depth of field doesn't alter due to exposure.

Aperture is part of the exposure triangle, and if aperture is adjusted it
will alter the DoF.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 2019-05-31 11:48, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 31 May 2019 16:14:43 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-31 06:17, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:23:05 UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2019-05-30 08:58, Whisky-dave wrote:

True and in this digital age why do we still use 1/x for exposure times why say 1/250th second when you can say 4 milliseconds or 4ms ?

Reciprocity.

what has that got to do with it.

Do you have a single notion of how exposure works considering depth of
field?

Depth of field doesn't alter due to exposure.

I never said it did.

--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown